You are not using a standards compliant browser. Because of this you may notice minor glitches in the rendering of this page. Please upgrade to a compliant browser for optimal viewing:
FirefoxInternet Explorer 7Safari (Mac and PC)

On Aug. 23, 2010, a federal district court judge issued a preliminary injunction that halts at least some federally funded human embryonic stem cell (hESC) work. There's been quite a bit of debate about what the injuction actually orders: Does it just roll back the Obama administration's expansion of hESC research? Or does it apply to all hESC work? Does it apply to funds already dispersed?

This goes way beyond hESC work, it can affect all work. Lets say you are studying butt touching and be funded by NIH grants to do the work. Now a few years from now the NIH says, butt touching is old news, lets focus on something more sexier like ball fondling. But wait, I'm a butt toucher not a ball fondler? Fear not, butt toucher, you can just file a lawsuit against the government based upon them placing undue competition on you. This flies in the face of the NIH's directive of funding the best and most relevant science, which goes through a rigorous review process as most would agree and placing it in the hands of a judge. If I saw James Sherley out on the street, I'd definitely punch him in the dick and I don't even work on or give a flying fuck about hESCs!

GR, you're quite right. I actually recall hearing about the decision to give Sherley standing in the case a few months ago and thought, "Great, so if I'm not happy about how much funding I'm getting, I can file a suit for unfair competition?" It sets a dangerous precedent from the funding standpoint.

It also reminds me of an interesting point. Lamberth (the presiding judge) originally dismissed the case because none of the plaintiffs had standing. It was the appellate who overturned the decision on Sherley and Deisher, allowing the case to be heard.

I think hESC research should go forward and that really what is limiting it is just a fundamental lack of public education on the issue. And the blame for that rests not on our shoulders but also patient advocacy groups need to get in the fight as well.

I think hESC research should go forward and that really what is limiting it is just a fundamental lack of public education on the issue. And the blame for that rests not on our shoulders but also patient advocacy groups need to get in the fight as well.

Regardless of the amount of public education on the subjection, there is a small segment of the population that will always be opposed to hESC work on moral and/or theological grounds. Though small, this segment has a loud voice. Zealots for a cause will always be heard-maybe not heeded but heard enough to create political controversy.

However, I do think that much of the population opposing hESC work simply don't understand it. They don't understand how the cells are derived, from what sources, or the difference between adult, iPS, cord blood, and embryonic stem cells. Some of the responsibility lies with scientists to clarify, in lay terms, the importance and potential of hESC research and why it's needed in addition and not as a replacement to other stem cell research. You're right that patient advocacy groups should get involved, as well. Public education on this issue will require a multifaceted approach.

Judge Lamberth has has denied DoJ's request to lift the ESC injunction. Looks like DoJ's already planning an appeal. But plaintiffs in the case are filing to request a summary motion-i.e. no trial, just judge deciding the case-and given the preliminary injunction, there's little doubt (in my mind, at least) which way that would go.

The Great Beyond has a brief post up. Plaintiffs have until Sept. 14 to respond, then DoJ has until Sept. 20, and I think we can expect the court to rule soon after. Basically this lets things proceed the way they were before the injuction for most of Sept.--maybe longer if the court sides with DoJ.

The appeals hearings (regarding the preliminary injunction) started yesterday. For a run down, check out these posts from MIT's The Tech and The Great Beyond. Although it seems all judges grilled both sides, it comes as no surprise that the 2 (W) Bush appointees came down hard on the government (defense) and the Clinton appointee went after the plaintiffs.